All it is is explosions and gunfire, no story, no characters, no plot. What insults me is that this actually happened and Hollywood decided to simplify the incident and turn it into a mindless action film. So disrespectful.
If all they wanted to do was show the battle then they should have made it a documentary however I'm guessing ticket/DVD sales wouldn't have been so great.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
You already have a thread talking *beep* about this movie. Stay there. Stop repeating yourself.
There is, unseen by most, an underworld...a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit...
This guy is a troll....
shareSo not liking the movie makes me a troll??? Wanting to know more about the men makes me a troll? Please explain in a respectful manner...
I didn't realize everyone had to like this movie. I also wouldn't say anything if people just accepted this for what it is: A standard action flick. Instead people on this board seem to think it's one of the greatest war dramas ever and when the entire movie is just a big action sequence, you don't know a thing about any of the soldiers it gets really hard to take it seriously as a war drama.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
You keep complainong about the lack of character development, what's pissing people off is the fact that your failure to understand the point of the film was not focused on who these soldiers were, but it was in fact a film about the hell they endured for 2 days, and how they managed to survive it.
shareWanting to know something about the soldiers in a war film is not a very unreasonable request.
Explain to me how the movie is not supposed to be about the men when it recognizes the men who died in the incident at the end of the film? The problem is we have no clue who these people are.
I understand the point of the film perfectly, he took a tragic event and turned it into an action film. The point of the movie is explosions and high body counts.
What is really sad is that the movie gives you absolutely no reason to care about anyone. These men have as much depth as any extra who gets shot in any generic action film.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
And if you don't like that's fine, but your consistently beating the same damn tired ass horse about the lack of character development... the reason why people love this film is because it's gritty and highlighted what actually happened that day... it wasn't about what the soldiers were feeling it was about how much of a massive *beep* up this mission became when the clinton admin got their damn noses in this mess and made this mess into a f-ing nightmare.
shareOK you like it, good for you. I don't have a problem with you liking it but just recognize it for what it is": an action film. I wouldn't have any problem at all if people just admitted that to themselves (I still wouldn't like the movie however).
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
You not liking the movie isn't what's pissing me off. That's perfectly fine. What's pissing me off (and why I'd call you a troll) is that you already made a thread about this. And it hasn't been deleted, so *beep* post your gripes there instead of repeating yourself.
There is, unseen by most, an underworld...a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit...
Fair enough buddy but I'm just stating my honest opinion, didn't think it would cause you to flip out.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
Again, you stated your "honest opinion" in another *beep* thread. That you created. That read exactly the same. Stop *beep* repeating yourself and wasting space.
There is, unseen by most, an underworld...a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit...
You not liking the movie isn't what's pissing me off. That's perfectly fine. What's pissing me off (and why I'd call you a troll) is that you already made a thread about this. And it hasn't been deleted, so *beep* post your gripes there instead of repeating yourself.+1 share
This is honestly how it goes on IMDb. Not liking any movie makes you a troll automatically.
-------------------------------------
OCD predator: www.goo.gl/0avZjB
IS THAT AN ORDER, SIR???
-------------------------------------
OCD predator: www.goo.gl/0avZjB
All it is is explosions and gunfire, no story, no characters, no plot. What insults me is that this actually happened and Hollywood decided to simplify the incident and turn it into a mindless action film.
So disrespectful.
If all they wanted to do was show the battle then they should have made it a documentary however I'm guessing ticket/DVD sales wouldn't have been so great.
OK fine, I'll go ahead and drop that it was disrespectful to the soldiers since apparently you have citations of soldiers loving the movie, fair enough, I'm not going to try and tell them what kind of portrayal they should like. Having said that yes there were 120 soldiers yet we knew absolutely nothing about any of them. Me personally when I watch something that is supposed to be a war drama I want there to be a story, I want to actually know a little something about the men who are fighting and I want the movie to be about more than just explosions and gunfire. I can't think of a single war movie out there that just skips over the story and the character development except maybe We Were Soldiers but even then that film did a better job at fleshing out its characters (although Mel Gibson was the only one I really felt they did a great job with, everyone else we knew very little about but we at least knew something).
Yes this was an action film the main focus was the violence not the characters or their psychological developments.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefineo
Yes this was an action film the main focus was the violence not the characters or their psychological developments.
I want the movie to be about more than just explosions and gunfire.
No but a movie that is supposed to honor the men who gave their lives should at least make an attempt to flesh out some of the characters, to tell their story, maybe let us know what they sacrificed back home, not make it one big gigantic action sequence. Maybe the experience was different for you but I knew absolutely nothing about any of these men and it really lessens the emotional impact. Yeah we had one guy try to call his wife and the entire scene lasted maybe 5 seconds, that is not establishing a character. We knew nothing about his relationship with his wife, we knew nothing about his relationship with his child, we didn't even know the guys name.
Are you kidding? We knew a lot about the men in Saving Private Ryan, we knew what their characteristics were, what their personalities were like, what they had going on back home, what their viewpoints on the war were, they all had a story and therefore it meant something when they tragically lost their lives. Black Hawk Down had none of that, the focus was on explosions and violence and not the men. I'm not saying a war movie shouldn't be violent so don't go there, of course it should be violent, war is violent but the violence shouldn't be the one and only focus, you have to have a story, you have to talk about people.
Like I said it was the biggest firefight in US military history especially URBAN warfare since Vietnam and two Blackhawks were downed in the city so of course it's going to be mainly explosions and gunfire as the troops tried to secure the crash sites and escape the hostile city.
The Battle of Mogadishu was all about gunfire and explosions. Most of the men who took place in it said that's what it was like for them. Most if not all of them took part in the "actor" camp where the actors who played Durant (Ron Eldard) and Cliff Wolcott (Jeremy Piven) went to the 101st SOAR unit to learn all about flying Black Hawks. Eldard spent a considerable amount of time with Durant who is now a teacher there. The actors who played Delts Boys in Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Gary Gordon), William Fichtner (Sanderson), Eric Bana (Gibson/Macejunas) and them actually went to Delta training camp at Fort Benning, as well as all the actors playing Rangers such as Josh Hartnett (Eversmann), Tom Seizmore (McKnight), Jason Isaacs (Steele), all were trained at Ft. Benning Ranger unit. There were five technical experts on the set including Tom Matthews played in the film by Glen Moreshower, Lee Van Arsdale (Van Arsdale was still on active duty at the time the film was being produced therefore the name of his character was changed to Cribbs) played in the film as Steven Ford, Matt Eversmann played by Hartnett, and one of the Rangers himself John Collette was a stuntie for actor Ewan McGregor in the scene where his character is hit by enemy fire and partially buried by the wall.
The first 25 minutes as someone else said was all about getting to know the men at the airbase. Ridley Scott had to battle for that introduction because the film company didn't want it in there. None of the men had their names on their helmets, but Scott felt that to know who each of them were, they needed the names on the helmets. It's little know there was a third Black Hawk hit that day, but if you put in every single aspect of the battle the film that was already two and a half hours, would have been four. We didn't see the footage shown on CNN of Shughart and Gordon being dragged through the streets, but we got the scene of Gordon being hoisted by the Somali crowd that hinted at what was to come.
Why not go and buy the three disc special edition Blu ray like most of us have and actually LISTEN to the commentary by both book author Mark Bowden and the technical commentary by Van Arsdale, Eversmann, Matthews and McKnight. The film wasn't supposed to be a moment-by-moment account, nor was it supposed to be about "getting to know xyz". It was about the battle. We learn more about who a soldier is when in battle than we know about them in real life. That's what the film was about. Who these guys were in the battle, not who they were giving a BBQ at home, or how many kids they had. And the men of Operation Gothic Serpent wanted that film to reflect who they were in battle. The 101st SOAR Black Hawk Unit, Rangers and D-Boys wanted the film to reflect them in battle. That scene where the officers were giving the layout of the battle didn't even happen. They had to put it in there so people knew what was going to happen. This was not like any other "war" film. It was about the battle alone, not who the men where before the battle.
Again that argument falls flat on its stupid face. If I have to listen to the commentary then that means the movie can't stand on its own. We didn't get to know anyone once the battle started. Again I know war movies typically have explosions and gunfire but if they don't properly set up the battle, give us build up or even let us know anything about the people involved then it comes across as shallow and boring and when a movie that is mostly action is boring you know its a complete failure. The first 25 minutes didn't really let us get to know anyone and when the battle started it was damn near impossible to tell who was who. I mean yeah we have guy who likes to play basketball, guy who likes to ride his bike, guy who tapes blood type to boot but that isn't even close to anything that could be considered good writing. BHD is also incredibly cliched and flat out corny.
My advice is try watching a film such as Apocalypse Now, that film has depth and meaning to it.
My advice to you is not to assume someone hasn't seen a film you suggest. I have seen Apocalypse Now and considering it's a fictional view of what Vietnam actually was, it has little in terms of reality to it. And I listened to the commentary on that bluray as well. See that's what I do. I'm a student of film and I love all that stuff. I'm also a student of Vietnam and quite honestly, aside from the napalm strafing and the riverine unit, the film is a little loose on fact. The film is a parable. Black Hawk Down was based on an actual event and the actual men who were in the battle gave their blessing to the film, even supplying the four Black Hawk helicopters and the four little birds plus the humvees for the production. And news for you still, I actually listen to all commentaries on all the blurays and dvds I have in my collection. Why? Because you find out interesting and small tidbits about the production and the film itself. So you fall flat on your stupid face because if you don't understand those commentaries augment your film experience, then there's nothing for you in film.
My brother is a lot like you. Shallow and uncomplicated. He's someone who can't watch a film that has a subtitle in it because he can't do two things at the same time. He also doesn't listen to the commentaries because according to him, "I don't know want to know Joe shit himself on that day....." Certainly not a student of film. And neither are you that you clearly didn't know who was who. That's what watching the making of features do for you. You get to know these guys so you can go back and watch the film again and see what and who you missed the first time through. BTW I've seen Apocalypse Now and Apocalypse Now Redux six times each. Black Hawk Down I've seen more than a dozen times. I've also seen Full Metal Jacket as many times.
Whether it's fictional or not says nothing about the overall quality of a film and while were on the topic I'm pretty sure BHD has some fiction in it as well such as the Grimes character who is a complete work of fiction. Apocalypse Now was about a lot more than Vietnam, it was an analysis of the human mind and what it takes to send a person over the edge to the "Heart of Darkness". It's a very complex character study and is generally considered by most to be one of the greatest films ever made. It also doesn't spoonfeed the audience, it requires them to think about what they are viewing and many people don't like that. BHD however is your standard action flick and there really isn't anything to get about it. Now I don't mind your standard action flick but what pisses me off about BHD is that it pretends to be something more than what it really is. I have also heard every excuse in the book: "We don't want scenes of men sitting around a campfire", "this is war we don't have time for characters", "It would be impossible to develop over 200 men", blah, blah, blah. I've heard it all and none of those excuses hold up. In Apocalypse Now there are things you keep picking up on every time you see it and that is another thing that is so great about it, it rewards the viewer for repeated viewings, I have seen it far more than you have and there are still things I am picking up on. Full Metal Jacket is good as well however I think most people only watch it because they think Hartman is hilarious and don't even know what its about, my proof: Half the people I talk to say "I don't like the second half, it's boring". Platoon is another film that is a lot better than Black Hawk Down.
You seem to be the one who is shallow, you can't handle a film that actually requires you to think and you have to have constant explosions and gunfire. The fact that you have to listen to the directors commentary to understand what you are watching is further evidence.
Well considering the film was nominated for best film of the year in 2001, I'd pretty much say that sort of shoves your argument off the table. The reason Grimes' character was a work of fiction is because the real guy, Stebbins was court-marshalled and later found guilty of assault and rape of a girl under the age of 12. The girl was his own daughter. Mark Bowden, who wrote the Black Hawk Down book and screenplay,
that he was pressurised by the Pentagon to change Stebbins's name in order to avoid controversy. Bowden refused to do so in the book, but eventually capitulated when writing the screenplay. Another instance of a "made up character" was Hoot Gibson played by Eric Bana. The real man John Macejunas was still on active duty as was Lee Van Arsdale who was played in the film by Steven Ford as Gribbs. In the audio commentary by the men who took part including Danny McKnight, Matt Eversmann, Dan Matthews, and Lee Van Arsdale himself who by the time of the home video release was no longer on active duty.
Black Hawk Down is also a complex story of men under fire. No different than Apocalypse Now. The only difference is that in this case, the story is actually true. Apocalypse Now is a standard "go in and get him and kill em" story. As for the compression of the events of BHD, the raid took place over the course of eighteen hours on the ground. So let's see how audiences would feel about spending eighteen hours with this story so that we can get a "good hold of who these men were". That scene where Jamie Smith is wounded and Kurt Schmid is trying to save him.... That scene gets me every time. There isn't anyone in Apocalypse Now I can root for. None of the men in that story are rootable because basically they're assassins. State sanctioned assassins. The story of the making of the film is more interesting than the actual film is...really.
OH I can handle films that actually make me think. I love "2001: A Space Odyssey". It's one of my favourite films. Talk about a film that is different for everyone. No film is absolutely perfect. What you want is a film that is spoon fed to you. BHD is not spoon fed. It's brutal and base in terms of the act of war because you know 19 men died in that event. I cannot watch that scene where Shughart and Gordon go in to save Durant without thinking of that footage of them being dragged down the main street of Mogadishu. There is your human cost. That was not included in the film due to respecting the men and their wives asked that not be included. The same thing about remembering that footage of the broken Durant being filmed knowing he was suffering from a broken back and other injuries. Apocalypse Now is a work of complete fiction. Like I said, the Napalm strafing and the pontoon boats on the delta are the only real parts of the story. I remember seeing Shughart, Gordon, and Cleveland being dragged down that street on CNN and that gives BHD so much more in terms of an emotional impact. I've also read up on the men who took part in that raid. Schmid now lives in Montana and Jamie Smith's death haunts him to this day. And I'll say again that the men who took part in the raid lent their voices to the research the actors conducted gives this film so much weight. Kenny Tomas, John Colette, and many of the others wrote letters to the actors asking them to respect their fallen in terms of Nikolaj Coster-Waldau who played Gary Gordon and Johnny Strong who played Randy Shughart, and also to depict their story truthfully. That in and of itself makes BHD more riveting and more of a personal journey than Apocalypse Now, which like I said the making of the film is more interesting than the film itself. Says a lot about the film when the behind the scenes stuff was more compelling. I mean Coppola working Sheen into a heart attack! "Marty Sheen doesn't have a heart attack unless I say he has a heart attack....." Says it all for me.
While Apocalypse Now is a well made film and the various restorations are amazing, the story in and of itself has been told many times in film. The Heart of Darkness isn't exclusive to Apocalypse Now. However, watching as man after man after man are being picked off knowing there were actual living men attached to those "screen" deaths is impactful. I'm sorry you are so jaded by whatever experience you've had that makes you so jaundiced to this film's actual story. Unless it's because the story it depicts is a black eye on America's armed services. The raid was a disaster from start to finish. It's so easy to watch a fictional film and be jizzed by the assassin aspect, but to actually accept the events of BHD were largely a big fat goose egg is difficult. Much like Vietnam the Battle of Mogadishu has no wins for America. And I'm feeling that's why you are so negative on the film.
Apocalypse Now as nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars, BHD only got technical nominations. Platoon won Best Picture and Best Director while Berenger and Dafoe were nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Not that I think the Oscars are a reliable source to determine which films are better but you brought it up. You see that's a problem, fans of BHD are so up their asses over the fact that the movie is "true" yet 2 of the top billed characters are complete works of fiction. That shows the the film didn't truly care about representing the people who were involved in the battle, they were just concerned about explosions. Apocalypse Now isn't a complete work of fiction either as it represents a real war and many of the things that happened did occur during the war. By your standards both BHD and Apocalypse Now are works of fiction, however I see them both as historical fiction.
BHD is not a complex story, it's not psychological, it doesn't explore any deep themes or complex ideas. It's about not getting shot and there is a psychological side to war along with a physical. By the way before you attack me saying that I am showing disrespect to the military I have a problem with the movie, not the military (BHD fans love to get up their own asses about that). Oh I see so you need a designated "good guy" and "bad guy" in a film??? That is a really immature attitude. The point of Apocalypse Now was that some men such as Kurtz felt that to win the war they had to go over to the "Heart of Darkness" and resort to such brutal guerilla tactics because the enemy was just as vicious (remember the inoculated arm story). It's about how if the other side isn't going to be moral then you are going to have to sacrifice your soul and your humanity in order to defeat them. Things are always black and white, even the people in wars that we felt were on the "right side" had to do things that they aren't proud of,
that was also a theme of Saving Private Ryan which is another film that is a lot better than Black Hawk Down. If you truly think that Apocalypse Now is a standard "go in and get em" film then you clearly don't understand what it's all about (even though in a nutshell I kind of just spoonfed it to you). Since you are such a fan of 2001 A Space Odyssey would you mind telling me what you think the whole thing means? (although you'll probably just got to youtube and watch some guys analysis on it).
"That was not included in the film due to respecting the men and their wives asked that not be included"
Again that shows Black Hawk Down is a historical fiction
"I'm sorry you are so jaded by whatever experience you've had that makes you so jaundiced to this film's actual story"
What story? There isn't a story? All it is is a giant action sequence and I know why they chose to film it that way, because someone saw Saving Private Ryan a few years ago and was like "wow that opening battle sequence was so cool! What if we made a whole movie that was nothing but a giant epic battle sequence just like Normandy!" We have somehow reached this idea that we need to ignore the psychological aspects of war and just make it all about violence. Sure violence will get butts in the seat which I guess is the whole idea but it deteriorates from the true effects of war on the human soul. BHD isn't the only film that did this, We Were Soldiers and Dunkirk are also just as bad (and 13 Hours to an extent but it was about the guys so I'll give that one a pass, what do you know I actually said something positive about Michael Bay). I don't need a happy ending, I don't need cliched patriotism in every scene, I need a story, I need a reason to get invested, I need a film that is supposed to be about war to be something other than just straight violence and explosions because war is more than that. Even First Blood was a better war film than BHD.
Actually I am friends with the actor Keir Dullea who played Bowman in the film and I agree with what he said, the meaning is universal. It has one meaning for one person as it does for the next. If you're religious it'll have a religious meaning for you. If you're not religious it'll have another. I've also read Clarke's novelization of the entire series 2001, 2010, 2061, and 3001. Each book is different in what it covers and Bowman's journey is pretty trippy.
You mentioned "Saving Private Ryan" which is a "based on a true story" film as well as 1965's "Battle of the Bulge". The Martin Hessler character played by Robert Shaw is based loosely on Field Marshall Erwin Rommel. NO FILM is a true telling of the events that are depicted. But when the technical advisors are the ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO TOOK PART IN THE RAID give it their thumbs up, which Tom Matthews on the commentary HAD YOU ACTUALLY LISTENED TO IT said the film is a perfect depiction of the men and the battle they fought that day and night. So when you keep yammering about the "true cost of war in a film" then you failed to note that scene at the end of the film where we see flag draped coffins in that plane ready to be shipped home to their families. And unlike Apocalypse Now that I'll grant you is a good film, hardly has the emotional impact as knowing those flag draped coffins in BHD depicted real soldiers who died in that battle. In that scene where the first casualty is felled in Sgt. Pilla, we see the effect that had on Capt. Steele's face knowing he chewed Pilla out earlier. Same when the survivors were brought to the Pakistani stadium after running the Mogadishu Mile. Then the scene where General Garrison is trying to sop up the blood on the surgical floor.
You keep saying "I NEED, I NEED, I NEED...." you sound like a baby needing his soother. For me it's about does it capture what essentially happened that day. And according to the TECHNICAL COMMENTARY BY TOM MATTHEWS (AIR SUPPORT THAT DAY), LEE VAN ARSDALE (JSOC), DANNY MCKNIGHT (GROUND FORCE ASSAULT ON THE TARGET BUILDING), AND MATT EVERSMANN (GROUND ASSAULT PROTECTION ON D-BOYS INVOLVED IN TARGET BUILDING ASSAULT) THEY CAPTURED THAT PERFECTLY the film did. For me it's about them being satisfied, not my need for what I need. The film got the original Task Force Ranger seal of approval. They got the participation of the 101st SOAR Air Assault Unit, Delta Force attached to the SOAR unit. That speaks volumes. You still haven't said anything about that Jamie Smith scene. Hugh Dancy killed that scene as Kurt Schmid. My heart ached for him as well as for Twombly (Tom Hardy) who knew Smith got the bullet aimed for him. Same thing again when both Shughart and Gordon ask for permission to go into the Super Six Four Durant crash site knowing what is happening on the ground. Both men were posthumously awarded the medal of honour citation for their bravery. On this day of all days in your country, that type of heroism goes above and beyond anything Apocalypse Now has FICTIONALLY portrayed about so-called character deliberation. This is Memorial Day in your country. That the ones who actually were involved that day approved of and took part in the film speaks more to me than a fictional film. When at the end of that film "The Minstrel Boy" plays, I'm gutted.
End scene from BHD:
https://youtu.be/PEnI3cziiVA
If people involved in the battle like it that's fine, it's their opinion and I would never denigrate or trivialize their experience. I however am also entitled to my opinion and Black Hawk Down is shallow, appeals to the lowest common denominator and doesn't really leave much of an emotional impact on me because it focuses way too much on explosions and bullets. They easily could have spent the first half of the movie developing the characters, letting us know who they are, where they come from and how they feel about the situation and then show the battle the second half which would have solved many of the numerous pacing problems BHD has. I am however sick and tired of people who seem to think that by just showing violence that it somehow makes the film deeper and anyone who wants to get to know the people involved "should just stick to watching the Notebook" because "this is war, you don't have time for a sappy love story" (even though I never asked for a love story and I thought Pearl Harbor was shit).
Real soldiers who died in the battle? That is a very nonsensical statement considering we got to know maybe 5 or 6 people who were in the raid (and one guy is pretty much just guy who likes to play basketball) and 2 of them were complete works of fiction. Those bodies we saw we have no idea who they were so by that logic I could apply the same standard to Apocalypse Now and say that the people who died in the battle scenes represented real people (since the Vietnam War really happened) just like how all of the dead soldiers in BHD represented real people even though we don't know them. I know you're probably going to tell me that I need to read the book and that will solve all of my problems and my answer is this: I shouldn't have to, the movie should be able to stand on its own. A war film is about more than just violence, it's also very psychological and that is what makes some of the great war films really amazing. There is nothing deep about BHD,
it's just your standard "shoot em up" movie kind of like Commando or Rambo III. What pisses me off though is people like you who pretend that it's trying to say something when it isn't. Anyone who has taken Filmmaking 101 is if you're film is going to have a big payoff at the end you need to have a little thing called buildup, Spielberg and Lucas are experts at this. If you don't take the time to set the stage before the payoff (in this case the battle) then it's boring and doesn't leave an emotional impact. Scarface also had a very satisfying payoff, they spent over 2 hours showing us how Tony Montana got to be who he was and the horrible things he did and that was what made the final fight so engaging (no I am not comparing a real event to a fictional drug lord, I'm comparing the story structure and the pacing of the two films so don't go there). You can't even tell who is who during the battle. It would be like if the Titanic started sinking 20 minutes in. It's incredibly cliched and by the numbers. All it did was try to bank off the success of Saving Private Ryan. Also pretty much every film critic agrees with me that the films I previously mentioned are better.
shareOMG, you mention George "Say it faster, move faster I cast Hayden Christianson as Darth Vader" Lucas?!!!!!! Lucas knows nothing of filmmaking or build up. For "The Empire Strikes Back" he, Gary Kurtz and Lawrence Kasdan had to hire Leigh Brackett a woman, to help them finesse that story. Brackett was a well known and beloved sci-fi author. As for Spielberg, he's adapted more books to screen than most directors and even he knows you can't please all the people all the time.
That guy who "liked to play basketball" is the guy who Kurt Schmid was trying to save his life at the Alamo. News for you idiot, all films at some point including "Saving Private Ryan" and your beloved Apocalypse Now rely on explosions and gun fights. I suppose that "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" scene isn't just a showy bit of pyrotechniques from Francis Ford Coppola? It is. He did nothing more than what Ridley Scott did with BHD... according to your criteria. How about that scene at the end when Kurtz's camp goes up? How about the waterskiing scene? No different than the "basketball playing scene" you keep bitching about. So wow, a guy likes waterskiing....how emotional, how great a scene was that one? Talk about trivial.
You see now you're changing the subject, I never said Lucas was perfect, I never said that Hayden Christianson was a good actor (although he is fucking Marlon Brandon compared to Adam Driver) but yes he does know a lot about build up, the attack on the Death Star, The Battle of Hoth, Vader and Luke's duel, all had some kind of emotional impact behind it because Lucas properly set the stage. Spielberg is also a genius at it, the first appearance of the shark in Jaws was so rewarding as throughout the past hour and a half he only hinted at it and progressively showed us more and more and he really let us know that something terrifying was under the water that we were aching to see it. By the way while I'm on the subject, I am in no way comparing a fictional shark to a real life battle where people died (so don't go there) but in Jaws it wasn't about watching the shark eat people, it was about Brody, Quint and Hopper, who they were, why they were doing what they were doing and it was about them achieving their objective and making it out of the situation. Jaws was about the characters not the shark, BHD however was not about the characters it was about the shark (well the battle).
And we didn't get to know anything about guy who plays basketball of Schmid so when he tried to save his life it didn't leave much of an impact. Where the hell did I say a war movie shouldn't have explosions, it should be it shouldn't be all explosions (much like how Jaws shouldn't just be the shark eating people). Don't you put words in my mouth again.
We knew far more about Kilgore than just like he likes the smell of Napalm, bad example. He saw war as a game, he raided that point not because he needed to get their boat into the river but because it had good surfing conditions. He liked going to war because then he would have an excuse for R&R which in his case was surfing. He was progressing towards the Heart of Darkness because he did not value human life.
Charlie established their base in that village because they thought the Americans wouldn't attack as they could possibly shoot civilians in the cross fire but Kilgore didn't care. And Willard said something that said a lot: If that is how Kilgore fought the war I began to wonder what they had against Kurtz. That whole segment was a warning to the audience of the pure insanity that Willard was going to encounter as he went down that river. That entire segment wasn't about explosions or pyrotechnics, it was about insanity and no BHD is not anywhere near the level of Apocalypse Now as far as story telling or meaning. There was a scene where Kurtz camp went up??? I think I may have missed that as I am pretty sure Coppola cut that scene, at least every edition of the film I've viewed doesn't have that scene. As for the waterskiing they were again establishing Lance's character and that is not the only thing we know about him as opposed to Basketball guy. Tell me this, what was your interpretation on the face paint Lance put on later? (yeah I know you're probably going to google it or youtube and I guess I've already pretty much spoonfed it to you it but humor me).
shareHow about that scene at the end when Kurtz's camp goes up?
[–] prometheus1816 (750) 2 years agoExcuse me for being a Butt-insky but will you be watching the Spike Lee's vietnam flick Da 5 Bloods? I'm just curious as to your take on it. Yes, yes because it rifts on other Vietnam flicks and of course Apocalypse Now!
My advice to you is not to assume someone hasn't seen a film you suggest. I have seen Apocalypse Now and considering it's a fictional view of what Vietnam actually was, it has little in terms of reality to it. And I listened to the commentary on that bluray as well. See that's what I do. I'm a student of film and I love all that stuff. I'm also a student of Vietnam and quite honestly, aside from the napalm strafing and the riverine unit, the film is a little loose on fact.
'' In Saving Private Ryan we only get a back story of some of the characters so are you going to bitch about that FICTION war movie too?!''
Unfortunetly, I would be this person. No offense, and I'm not planning to bitch about the movie as I know that objectively it is a great movie. I just really don't care much about it and it might be the movie I personally find the most overrated.
Why does it insult you? What do the soldier who were there and the soldiers like them past and present think? Do they think its disrespectful? The overwhelming verdict on that is absolutely not. Get over your own ego and don't mischaracterize the problem here. This movie doesn't disrespect the story, that is a fact backed up by the actually participants and other veterans alike. The movie doesn't disrespect you. You don't like it, there doesnt need to be any uber rationalizing here, just don't watch it. You are having delusions of grandeur, no one really cares about your want to be a bad film critic.
Really what you are is a troll undercover. Everything you post is designed to exert a reaction. You like to argue, you like to drive that strife.
You are taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?
I already conceded that the movie was disrespectful, another poster claimed he had quotes from soldiers who were actually at the raid saying they loved it, I get it and I respect that. I still think it's a bad movie, no story and all action. Don't get me wrong I don't mind action sequences, but when you don't know anything about any of the people involved it comes off as just boring and shallow.
If you like the movie great, I personally didn't see anything deep about it.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
What are you, Somalian?
Cardboard Box is the Future.
This is suppose to be tense the whole time. Wants the crowd to feel the closest as possible to what the soldiers felt in the situation. I'm sure they could've stopped the action and had a soldier sit behind a wall as bullets wiz by and stare out to nothing then cut to a flashback of him thinking about his family or friends but that what stop the feeling of unrelenting tension they want you to feel so you can imagine what soldiers went through and what they did in a hell war of unrelenting shooting and rpgs and how their training kept them alive throughout it. They react and act without thinking to keep themselves and their buddy next to them alive.
shareCharacter development is a necessary element in any good film. You action crazy morons obviously have no clue. The OP is spot on, this film deserved a better treatment. Simply because OP disagrees with you he is a troll, I love reading that nonsense. Non-thinking idiots use that response all the time. Keep waving your a-hole flag, it make you sound more idiotic than you already are, if that's even possible.
Try watching "The Longest Day" a real film.
My Top 50 Films http://www.imdb.com/list/ls033211402/
I have discovered very quickly that BHD fans are a very special group of people. If you don't like their movie then that must mean that you hate the military and they even question your patriotism. I knew that I would be pretty much outnumbered when I posted this thread but I honestly don't care.
From what I read there were many deleted scenes that went far deeper into the psychology of the soldiers, there were many conversations between the men where they were questioning whether they should really be there and if it was really their war. That would have made for a really good movie because it would have shown that even the guys who felt that they never should have been there in the first place still went in to save their comrades. It sounds to me that they actually did make a good war movie but chose to take out the deep, complex character development so they could pack in as many explosions as possible.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
I have discovered very quickly that BHD fans are a very special group of people.
Yet you are also in the minority of people who thinks that Black Hawk Down is better than Saving Private Ryan. IMDB, MC, RT and the academy all though that SPR was better, you need to learn to deal with it and the fact that there are plenty of war movies that did better than BHD did such as Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, etc. I know what your response is, "well those movies are fiction, they could just make up whatever they wanted", and that is really a big pile of nonsense, the fact that the directors and writers had to use their own creativity and convey they own themes was certainly a more difficult task than having everything already laid out for them.
like I've told you numerous times before it was the biggest URBAN firefight of US Armed Forces since Vietnam so NOTHING was EMBELLISHED by Ridley Scott!
6 months later, and you're still going on about this? Shut the *beep* up and go to the Saving Private Ryan or Platoon board. Nobody wants to hear your *beep* anymore. This was a good movie, based on real events, and you can't fathom that. Apparently you are too simple-minded to grasp the chaotic nature of combat.
Get the *beep* outta here,
Rex
When movie hell is full, re-makes shall walk the earth.
Then don't read my thread you dumbass. It wasn't a good movie, it was a standard action flick that was so up its own ass that it pretended to be something more than it really was.
shareyou are not very bright, are you? The first 40 minutes of the movie has no shoot-em-up scenes.
We learn about Atto the gun runner, General Garrison, private Blackburn, Grimsey, Eversmann, Hoot, Woolsey and Durant, Capt Steele, Pilla, Struecker and Gordon and others.
Now all of this is conveyed via dialog and actions and not spoon fed to you so you have to be smart enough to pick up on the information.
No plot? The beginning of the movie sets the context via captions which tell why and how the U.S. military is in Mogadishu and what tensions exist between the situation there and the politics of Washington, i.e. the tension which sets the stage for the entire movie. Also, there is a scene which expounds completely on why they have to go into the Bakara market and the risks of what that entails.
This is all plot. Once again, it is not spoon fed to you and you have to be smart enough to understand what is happening.
The rest of the movie is about The Battle of Mogadishu. You know, the entire point of the movie.
That you did not like the movie is your prerogative.
But, to be clear, I am not arguing with your opinion of whether you like the movie, the army, war or politics. I am stating that your post is not well substantiated. You know, a counter argument to your argument that the movie is bad.
Lastly, I do care that people who actually were there said the book and movie did a good job of telling the story of what happened at The Battle of Mogadishu.
And what exactly do we learn about these people in the first 40 minutes? Not much of anything now do we? Also explosions, gun shots and don’t die isn’t a plot, that’s just an action sequence. This movie is like watching 5he second tape of titanic only, sure the second tape is the payoff but without the build up it means nothing, vhs 2 is dependent upon vhs 1. You don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about.
shareAll it is is explosions and gunfire
Appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy and it proves you can’t defend this film based on its merits. I also never said I was an expert on the event, when I see a movie though I want to be engaged in the story, this movie wasn’t engaging nor did it have a story, that’s my point numb nuts
share